Obamacare better than alternative [Letter]

Obamacare could never have been a success without national and mandatory medical insurance. Take that away and the concept begins to crumble even without the opposition of Republican ideologues. All classes of our society appear delighted to take from the government but less so about giving money to it. Libertarians shout that we're taxed to the hilt and subject to many unneeded government strictures, but a deadened tolerance seems to allow for strictures if declared by private enterprises.

As an alternative to the now fractured Obamacare, Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. suggests that a bipartisan Congress could have cobbled together existing medical plans, extended health savings accounts, cross-state border insurance plans, and tort reform ("Obamacare is a turkey ready for slaughter Nov. 10). All very nice, but no better than the current fractured ACA.

I'm not an advocate of a national health service but I do believe in an all embracing national health insurance plan along the lines of Medicare — private insurance companies can have a slice of the market, such as is found in Medigap plans.

Sadly, an apt illustration of the current health system's inability to fully cover the costs of catastrophic incidents is noted in the article about Erika Brannock ("Seven months after Boston Marathon bombing, local victim walking," Nov. 9). Although she has some health insurance, and has received some help from a fund set up in Boston, she is still at the mercy of finding funds from compassionate sources for rehabilitation and further care of her bomb-incurred injuries.

Former Governor Ehrlich should know well that there are a number of victims of catastrophic incidents who have never become known to the media and their sources for compassionate help are meager.